Question about TWOK DE (HD) on iTunes

[Oso Blanco]

I recently bought the HD version of the TWOK DE from iTunes, and that brought up one question:

When the DE was released on DVD, has it been mastered in HD and then downscaled to DVD? If that's the case, then I guess that iTunes has the HD master from back then.

Or is it the other way around? Was the movie mastered in SD back then, and has been upscaled for iTunes?

I doesn't look bad at all, definitely better than the SD version, so it might be genuine HD. But I can't say for sure. I'd say it definitely comes from the same master, though.

 

[Indysolo]

I think it was HD then and then downscaled for SD.

 

[Grant]

I rather doubt it was rendered in HD since they claimed they didn't have the extra footage to put the DE on Blu-ray in2009.


Unless they were flat out lying about the fact they had a readily available master of the DE in HD.

Now it's 4 years later and still no sign of the DE coming to Blu-ray---that sounds unlikely if they had it ready to go.

I can see them being too cheap/lazy to convert the extra footage to HD format, but if it had already been done I think we would have seen some '30th anniversary TWOK DE" release last year.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Grant, that sounds like TMP, not The Wrath of Khan.

The new effects for the DE of TMP were done at 480i, mostly using LightWave and other software.

For TWOK, the footage exists on film, and thus Nicholas Meyer's extended cust could theoretically be be done.

It is likely that the films on Blu-Ray are the theatrical versions of the film for consistency of the set, and to avert consumer confusion.

I think I read somewhere that TWOK went through some kind of restoration process beyond a simple transfer and cleanup of the other films, but I don't think they did much to the the films.

 

[Oso Blanco]

So I take it that no one knows for sure whether or not the HD versions on iTunes are true HD or upscaled SD? In case of TWOK it seems to be the same transfer as the DVD DE, but it's picture quality is quite inconsistant. It looks great in some scenes and almost bad in others. The BD is much better, if only it was the DE!

 

[BillJ]

So I take it that no one knows for sure whether or not the HD versions on iTunes are true HD or upscaled SD? In case of TWOK it seems to be the same transfer as the DVD DE, but it's picture quality is quite inconsistant. It looks great in some scenes and almost bad in others. The BD is much better, if only it was the DE!

In the HD version of TWOK when the Enterprise is leaving Regula I to head towards the Mutara Nebula they've color-corrected the shot. In the SD version it's a brownish-red, in the HD version it has a bluish tinge. I figure this would be the easiest way to tell which version it is.

 

[Oso Blanco]

It's bluish on the BD, but this one is the earlier transfer. The question is, if it comes from an HD master or if it has been upscaled from SD.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If iTunes has it in HD, it's real HD. Not upscaled SD.

 

[Grant]

So I take it that no one knows for sure whether or not the HD versions on iTunes are true HD or upscaled SD? In case of TWOK it seems to be the same transfer as the DVD DE, but it's picture quality is quite inconsistant. It looks great in some scenes and almost bad in others. The BD is much better, if only it was the DE!

In the HD version of TWOK when the Enterprise is leaving Regula I to head towards the Mutara Nebula they've color-corrected the shot. In the SD version it's a brownish-red, in the HD version it has a bluish tinge. I figure this would be the easiest way to tell which version it is.

"color corrected"

 

[Grant]

Grant, that sounds like TMP, not The Wrath of Khan.

The new effects for the DE of TMP were done at 480i, mostly using LightWave and other software.

For TWOK, the footage exists on film, and thus Nicholas Meyer's extended cust could theoretically be be done.

It is likely that the films on Blu-Ray are the theatrical versions of the film for consistency of the set, and to avert consumer confusion.

I think I read somewhere that TWOK went through some kind of restoration process beyond a simple transfer and cleanup of the other films, but I don't think they did much to the the films.

No, I am referring to TWOK.

When questioned by Bill Hunt as to why they didn't release the extended versions of TWOk and TUC on Blu-ray in 2009--they told him that they didn't realize until too late that they didn't have the extended footage readily on hand to be transferred to HD 1080p. So they simply released the original versions only.

TMP is a totally different story where they have yet to render the DE new FX in 1080p.
That would require some work, whereas the 3 and a half minutes of NON fx footage added to TWOK and TUC would be simple to transfer to 1080p and edit into the movie.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

...whereas the 3 and a half minutes of NON fx footage added to TWOK and TUC would be simple to transfer to 1080p and edit into the movie.

...and let's not forget, a couple of familiar scenes in the TWOK DE are in fact alternate takes! Inferior ones to boot, IMHO. Another reason I was extremely pleased the theatrical version was selected for the initial BD release.

 

[Grant]

...whereas the 3 and a half minutes of NON fx footage added to TWOK and TUC would be simple to transfer to 1080p and edit into the movie.

...and let's not forget, a couple of familiar scenes in the TWOK DE are in fact alternate takes! Inferior ones to boot, IMHO. Another reason I was extremely pleased the theatrical version was selected for the initial BD release.

That has nothing to do with my post--just an excuse to promote your preferred version of the movie---Lame.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

...whereas the 3 and a half minutes of NON fx footage added to TWOK and TUC would be simple to transfer to 1080p and edit into the movie.

...and let's not forget, a couple of familiar scenes in the TWOK DE are in fact alternate takes! Inferior ones to boot, IMHO. Another reason I was extremely pleased the theatrical version was selected for the initial BD release.

That has nothing to do with my post--just an excuse to promote your preferred version of the movie---Lame.

Eh, I was just trying to add to the discussion. I truly haven't got the slightest idea why you'd respond to my post in such a way. What the hell's wrong with you?

 

[Grant]

...and let's not forget, a couple of familiar scenes in the TWOK DE are in fact alternate takes! Inferior ones to boot, IMHO. Another reason I was extremely pleased the theatrical version was selected for the initial BD release.

That has nothing to do with my post--just an excuse to promote your preferred version of the movie---Lame.

Eh, I was just trying to add to the discussion. I truly haven't got the slightest idea why you'd respond to my post in such a way. What the hell's wrong with you?

The discussion is about whether the Itunes HD version is taken from an HD master or is upscaled.

Quoting my post, which is related to the excuse/reason why they didn't release the DE on Blu-ray and therefore, indicates that the iTunes is not taken from an actual HD master of the DE---is related to the thread OPs question.

Chiming in with another, "yipee my preferred version is the one they used for the Blu-ray!" is lame in my opinion.

Every time someone talks about why the DE isn't on Blu-ray or lamenting that it isn't--- a few people always seem to ignore that theme and basically say how happy they are that the theatrical is and that it is superior---which is totally opinion and doesn't have anything to do with why or when the DE will make it to Blu-ray.


There's more wrong with those people than with me.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

That has nothing to do with my post--just an excuse to promote your preferred version of the movie---Lame.

Eh, I was just trying to add to the discussion. I truly haven't got the slightest idea why you'd respond to my post in such a way. What the hell's wrong with you?

The discussion is about whether the Itunes HD version is taken from an HD master or is upscaled.

Quoting my post, which is related to the excuse/reason why they didn't release the DE on Blu-ray and therefore, indicates that the iTunes is not taken from an actual HD master of the DE---is related to the thread OPs question.

Chiming in with another, "yipee my preferred version is the one they used for the Blu-ray!" is lame in my opinion.

Every time someone talks about why the DE isn't on Blu-ray or lamenting that it isn't--- a few people always seem to ignore that theme and basically say how happy they are that the theatrical is and that it is superior---which is totally opinion and doesn't have anything to do with why or when the DE will make it to Blu-ray.


There's more wrong with those people than with me.

Jesus, it was a totally innocent post - I felt the information was relevant in as much as the alternate takes would also have to be sourced for a 1080 transfer. I even stated it was "my humble opinion" with reference to their relative quality. You're being ridiculously over-aggressive and I just can't believe you feel justified in attacking my post in the way you did. I am truly taken aback?

 

[Grant]

"I am truly taken aback?"


I don't know--are you?

at any rate, yes, the additional footage needed for the DE would of course require the entire framing portion surrounding the extended footage.

But as can be seen in the Peter Preston footage---it's mostly one long uncut take---so that 50 second section would be in one piece in one place.
They had the footage in 1985 when they did the ABC cut and in 2002 when the did the DVD DE edition.

It was incompetence (as they claimed in 2009) OR it was simple greed (setting up a double dip) that prevented the DE from being on Blu.

Not the lack of footage.

I don't mind you pointing out that they are alternate takes were used for some of the additions, I just find it lame when folks throw in little comments on which version is better in a thread that isn't about that.


As I said-- every time the subject of the DEs coming to Blu-ray comes up, some folks just can't resist chiming in how the theatricals are better.

I am glad the folks who prefer the theatricals got that version on Blu-ray.

But when those of us who prefer the extended are talking about when it will come and others are trying to constantly point out that we are longing for something that is inferior, that is --- well, lame.

But if you weren't doing that--I'm glad.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

"I am truly taken aback?"


I don't know--are you?

at any rate, yes, the additional footage needed for the DE would of course require the entire framing portion surrounding the extended footage.

But as can be seen in the Peter Preston footage---it's mostly one long uncut take---so that 50 second section would be in one piece in one place.
They had the footage in 1985 when they did the ABC cut and in 2002 when the did the DVD DE edition.

It was incompetence (as they claimed in 2009) OR it was simple greed (setting up a double dip) that prevented the DE from being on Blu.

Not the lack of footage.

I don't mind you pointing out that they are alternate takes were used for some of the additions, I just find it lame when folks throw in little comments on which version is better in a thread that isn't about that.


As I said-- every time the subject of the DEs coming to Blu-ray comes up, some folks just can't resist chiming in how the theatricals are better.

I am glad the folks who prefer the theatricals got that version on Blu-ray.

But when those of us who prefer the extended are talking about when it will come and others are trying to constantly point out that we are longing for something that is inferior, that is --- well, lame.

But if you weren't doing that--I'm glad.

Honestly, I don't really care if you're glad or not - and yes, I was taken aback, just thought I'd clarify that on the off-chance you weren't trying to be smart. Getting into a discussion on the merits of the two versions didn't even cross my mind when I posted. You've extrapolated a raft of meaning from my words that just aren't there - it's pretty sad you're getting so bent out of shape over something so trivial. I still can't believe a quick and completely uncontroversial/innocent post made with absolutely no mischievous intent whatsoever has illicited a response like this from you.

 

[Grant]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

I managed to make 7 posts without saying which version was "inferior ---IMO"


But in your first post you managed to throw that in. Goody for you---thanks for letting us know where you stand.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

I managed to make 7 posts without saying which version was "inferior ---IMO"


But in your first post you managed to throw that in. Goody for you---thanks for letting us know where you stand.

No, I stated the alternate takes are inferior. Also, I managed to totally avoid going off the deep end and use insulting language about anybody else's posts for absolutely no reason.

Oh, by the way, this is a message board primarily used for people to express their opinions on Star Trek.

 

[Joker]

"Methinks...

You're still as charming as that private message you sent me about anal sex all those months ago.

Rock on, sister.